La Salete Coelho

21st August 2017

Uma iniciativa: Co-financiamento: Apoio

Development Education (DE) Synergies:

A Pilot Experience of Knowledge Co-creation

A. AN ONGOING EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEBATE

• “Academic monopolism” (Tandon, 2016) - Creation, Validation and Dissemination

• Risks

1. Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks and Approaches

- Distant from reality;

- Fragmented in

disciplines;

- A single perspective

- Promotor of:

.cognitive injustice;

.“massive epistemicide”

(Santos, 2007)

- Serves an academic purpose,

BUT DOES NOT

influences practices and informs

public policies

- NOT transforming society

• Alternatives

- existence of a “boundary work” made

by “knowledge brokers or boundary

organisations” which can bridge the

gap between researchers and

practitioners and/or decision makers

(Oswald, 2016; Schucksmith, 2016).

- some hybrid person - a “researtioner”

(Roque Amaro, 2014).

- co-production of knowledge - which

interfere with conventional research practices

and roles of researchers (Schucksmith, 2016)

- importance of building networks and long-

term relationships of trust between

academics, their partners and policy and

practice communities.

1. Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks and Approaches

Engaged Excellence

High-quality delivery:

- Engaged

- Plurality of perspectives

-Rigourous

- Robust

- Relevant and usable

Co-construction ofknowledge:

- Involvement of diversetypology of actors

- In all the phases of theresearch process

- Ecology of methodologies, kinds of knowledges and

perspectives

Mobilising impact orientedevidence:

- Individual and institutional

- Focused in the process

- Improved practices andpolicy influence

- New assessmentapproaches

Building enduringpartnerships:

- Based on trust, transparencyand reciprocity

- Bring together differentperspectives

- Mutual learning and benefits

Source: Author elaboration based in John Gaventa’s model

(Oswald, Gaventa and Leach, 2016, p.2)

C. ENGAGED EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH

IDS identifies four pillars

of engaged excellence in

its Strategy 2015-2010

(IDS, 2015):

i) Delivering high-quality

research;

ii) Co-constructing

knowledge;

iii) Mobilising impact-

oriented evidence;

iv) Building enduring

partnerships

2. The context of the study

Development Education Synergies

Getting to know so as to act better – promoting research on DE action in Portugal

Shared perspective between the two organisations: FGS (NGDO) and CEAUP

(I&D)

B. PROJECT CONTEXT

DE as a fundamental field

and discipline for:

- an integrated vision and

action in development

field;

- promoting a closer

relationship between

Universities and NGDOs

DE as “a framing paradigm

that fosters the re-

conceptualization of

knowledge and promotes

the transformative role of

education”

(Tarozzi, Torres, 2016)

Need for alternative

scientific research

methodologies:

- horizontal logic of

reflection

- joint knowledge

production

- practical implications

as the driving force

behind the

transformation and

legitimisation of

actions in the field.

2. The context of the study

• 12 HEIs and 12 CSOs were invited 10 HEIs and 11 CSOs joined the project

- relevance or interest in DE field;

- diversity of entities

- territorial decentralisation

- easy to reach

• 4 meetings within the 2 years of the project (it were forseen 2 in the project description)

• Phases of the work :

- matching of the partners

- decision about what would be research topics, methodologies, sources, etc.,

- data collection and analysis, finalising, in some cases, with the joint writing of a paper.

• Knowledge co-creation:

- 6 papers were published in the Sinergias journal

• Other unexpected synergies

- creation of a virtual communication,

- active participation in other activities of the project

- co-organisation of events among entities,

- creation of a post-graduation course in a partnership involving entities from the project

C. COLLABORATIVE WORK

2. The context of the study

D. METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Qualitative Research

Research design - “case study” - it allows us “the study of the particularity and

complexity of a unique case, being able to understand its activity in the extent of

important circumstances” (Stake, 2009)

Research Techniques

- bibliographic analysis, mainly to build the conceptual framework

- content analysis, from available documents and interviews performed with

participants in the partnerships of the project.

I PHASE – Document Analysis - very diverse, elaborated in very different times,

through several methodologies and presenting multiple perspectives

i) Transcription of a panel (recorded in video) devoted to the collaborative work

that took place in the international meeting - "Synergies for social change:

dialogues about Development", in January 2016 (8 organisations);

II PHASE – Interviews to some of the participants in the collaborative work

3. Testing the framework

High-quality delivery:

- Engaged

- Plurality of perspectives

-Rigourous

- Robust

- Relevant and usable

Engaged

The identification with a common cause, of a collective

meaning for the study, was really important for the success of

the partnership. (CSO1)

Plurality of perspectives

Sometimes as a richness and complementarity, some others as

a constraint: conceptual frameworks, different languages,

timings, perspectives (HEI2), backgrounds (CSO2) and

expectations (CSO3). In order to face these difficulties it was

stressed the need of more “time for dialogue” (HEI2), of a

“constant clarification” (CSO2) and the development of more

“communication skills” (CSO2).

Relevant and usable

“It helped in getting to a better definition of what DE means in the projects” (CSO1)

“This collaborative work allowed us to build a course, with the teachers of the HEI, devoted to DE

issues” (CSO2)

“The application for the next phase of the project we have studied was completely different

because of the research made together” (CSO1)

Rigorous and robust (few references)

“(…) we are in a work in progress, we made just a working paper, very exploratory right now but we intent to go deeper in the next phase” (HEI1)

Co-construction ofknowledge:

- Involvement of diversetypology of actors

- In all the phases of theresearch process

- Ecology of methodologies, kinds of knowledges and

perspectives

Diverse typology of actors:

-10 HEIs involved – University, Research Centres,

Polytechnic Institutes

-11 CSOs involved – NGDOs and Local Associations

In all the phases of the research project

“There was some difficulty to the HEI to accept the

collaboration in all phases of the research – this

created some discomfort between the partnership” (HEI2)

When the study was planned in a “service provider”

logic, meaning the University studying the NGDO, for

example, the partnership was not consolidated and did not

reach the final goals (HEI2)

Ecology of methodologies, kinds of knowledge and perspectives

“There was an initial difficulty because we both came from different fields (psychology, educational

sciences), it was a challenge (…) we had to create our own “research language” that it would be

different if we were doing the study on our own” (CSO1)

“We had no specific expectations with the study. We wanted to look at that project with DE lenses

and that helped to avoid a relationship based on power asymmetries” (CSO1)

. The acknowledgement of differences and complementarities between the entities helped

identifying the role of each institution in the collaborative work. (HEI4)

3. Testing the framework

Mobilising impact orientedevidence:

- Individual and institutional

- Focused in the process

- Improved practices andpolicy influence

- New assessmentapproaches

Individual and institutional

“I am not sure if change has been made, but I am sure

that this project left some seeds in my institution”

(HEI2)

Focus in the process

“The project was much more than the final products,

the papers were just an excuse to develop joint

activities. (…) There were learnings that exceeded

our initial purposes, and that was really great”. (HEI2)

Improved practices and policy influence

“We wanted an impact evaluation of our 7 years project and it was really important to work with

someone from the Academic world and to reframe our own expectations and our own

knowledge” (CSO3)

New assessment approaches

“It was important to notice that this project, because had no funds for the research, made us

emancipate of the usual funding and project logics” (CSO2)

“The application for the next phase of the project we have studied was completely different

because of the research made together” (CSO1)

3. Testing the framework

Building enduringpartnerships:

- Based on trust, transparency and reciprocity

- Bring together differentperspectives

- Mutual learning andbenefits

Based on trust, transparency and reciprocity

“In this kind of work it is needed a mutual trust (…) and a

constant dialogue. It was very important to meet in presence

– Skype calls or emails are not enough”. (HEI2)

“The previous personal relationships were very important”.

(HEI1 and CSO4)

“The geographical distance was a challenge”. (CSO1)

Bring together different perspectives

It [the project] reinforced a culture of collaboration between

different institutions learning to reconcile diverse times,

concepts, languages, instruments, cultures and

objectives” (HEI4)

Mutual learning and benefits

“It’s important to know very clearly the motivations of each partner, that helps to shape the

partnership and the role of each one” (HEI3)

“We developed communication skills – listening, explaining, arguing – the dialogue was really

important for mutual understanding and learning” (CSO2)

“Because it become almost a platform of communication, it was a really added value - we had

opportunities to work with other organisations that were new to us” (CSO3)

3. Testing the framework

To finish the data analysis:

- i) memory of a reflexive moment proposed within the 4th meeting of the project (the last one), in

October 2015, with the presence of representatives from 14 organisations (out of 21);

- ii) data base of the questionnaire sent to the participants of the project for the external final

evaluation of the project (through an e-survey sent in the second half of January 2016, it was

possible to collect 15 answers);

- iii) External Final Evaluation report presented in March 2016;

- iv) memories and Final Reports of the process of Systematisation of Experiences, that took place

between September and November 2016.

To analyse the content of the 14 semi-structured interviews to the participants of the seven

partnerships.

To elaborate on the findings, especially guided by the following analyse topics:

- relationship between what is said by the participants and its type of institution (CSO or HEI);

- categorisation of the seven collaborative processes (seven partnerships) to make clusters of

cases with similar characteristics;

- comparative analysis of the balance among the pillars - are they equally represented in the

references of the participants? Are pillars more represented than others? Which? For what

reasons?

- major lessons learnt about the factors that hindered or promoted the collaborative processes.

To contribute to the theory itself, questioning and enriching the its framework thorough the

learnings of this experience

4. Next Steps

La Salete Coelho

CEAUP - Centre for African Studies of the University of Porto

E-mail: ceaup.lasaletecoelho@gmail.com

Thanks for your attention!

www.sinergiased.org

Aknowledgements:

. DE Synergies project coordination team

Tânia Neves, Jorge Cardoso e Hugo Marques

. Filipe Martins, external evaluator

. Cecília Fonseca, expert on Systematization of Experiences